What's the Matter With Wisconsin

Motorists make their way through the snow along Highway 41 Feb. 17 near Fond du Lac, Wis. (Getty Images.)

By Dan Balz
Five days ago the question was, would Barack Obama walk away with Wisconsin? On Saturday it was, why is Hillary Clinton walking away from Wisconsin? By Monday morning, it was, could Clinton win Wisconsin?

David Plouffe, the manager of Obama's campaign, was lowering expectations in his conference call with reporters on Monday morning. "They're contesting it ferociously," he said of the Clinton campaign. "I believe they think they can win it and that's what they're trying to do."

The Clinton camp has been trying to manage expectations for the better part of a week. Earlier it said it would make its stand against Obama in Ohio and Texas, rather than Wisconsin. But in the past few days it has increased its advertising and, in part because of the impact of Sunday's bad weather on the candidates' schedules, will end up spending more time in the state in the final 48 hours than Obama.

There is every reason, absent powerful momentum for Obama after last weeks' big victories in Maryland, Virginia and the District, to see Wisconsin as competitive. Both campaigns argue that the state should be favorable to the other side, with some justification.

The Clinton campaign sees Wisconsin as a haven of progressive and independent-minded voters, the kind of people who have found Obama appealing in earlier contests. They say Wisconsin is a quirky state, one that over the years has elected iconoclastic senators like Russ Feingold or William Proxmire, not always establishment candidates, like Clinton. They see Madison and the University of Wisconsin, where Obama drew more than 15,000 people last Tuesday night, as trouble -- although Clinton will hold a rally there late Monday in an effort to hold down his margins in Dane County.

Obama's campaign sees Wisconsin as a state with a sizable blue-collar population, an economy hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs and families struggling with health care or college costs -- all ingredients that have been helpful to Clinton in the past. They see Wisconsin as a state with a large Catholic population -- which has been one of Clinton's strength in other states -- and a smaller African American population.

In Wisconsin, people and politicians are reveling in their unexpected importance. Few expected that a primary two weeks after Super Tuesday would become consequential. The mood at the Wisconsin Democratic Party's Founders Day dinner on Saturday night in Milwaukee was exuberant, as party activists cheered the two candidates and their own good fortune at being relevant.

A showdown in Wisconsin is fitting, giving the state's history. Theodore H. White, in his classic "The Making of the President 1960" penned a wonderful paragraph about how politicians in that era, who had not yet yielded their power over the nomination to the people, regarded the state.

"Of all 50 states in the union, Wisconsin is probably that state in which professional politicians most hate to tempt a primary," White wrote. "It was Wisconsin, as a matter of fact, that in 1903 first invented the presidential primary, which so many other states have since copied. And the political philosophy that inspired that revolutionary invention has made and left Wisconsin in political terms an unorganized states, a totally unpredictable state, a state whose primaries have over many quadrennials proved the graveyard of great men's presidential ambition."

Wisconsin has voted with insurgents and establishment candidates over the years. The state helped elevate John F. Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey in 1960. It destroyed liberal Morris Udall's hopes of stopping moderate Jimmy Carter in 1976 in a race that tipped first toward Udall and finally, in the wee hours of primary night, to Carter. Ted Kennedy could not find his brother's magic there in 1980, but insurgent Gary Hart defeated party favorite Walter Mondale in 1984.

The applause meter at Saturday's dinner favored Obama. The audience was slow to warm to Clinton, who spoke first. By the end, she had found her voice and the activists began to respond. Obama got a boisterous reception when he came into the room, but he too started slowly. Midway through he found his cadence and by the end had the crowd standing and cheering.

Toward the end, he unleashed his latest response to Hillary Clinton charges that he is all talk but no action. She has argued, he said, that one candidate "talks pretty" and makes good speeches, but that she is into delivering solutions. "The notion I guess is that words don't matter," he said.

Then with a rising voice he invoked some famous words from American history. "'I have a dream.' Just words?" he asked. "'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words? Just speeches."

By now the audience was hanging on his words. "It's true that speeches don't solve problems," he aid. 'But it is also true that if we don't inspire the country to believe again, it doesn't matter how many policies and plans we have."

It was a powerful moment in the convention center, but it has come back to haunt Obama since. Those words, as it turned out, were virtually identical to some used by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick in 2006, when he faced similar criticism from his opponent. Patrick and Obama are old friends and political allies and it is clear that Obama appropriated the language as his own, without any attribution.

The Clinton campaign has seized on this and accused Obama of plagiarism. The Obama camp has tried to dismiss it as a "sideshow" that voters will pay no attention to.

The Obama campaign may underestimate the controversy's impact in the final hours of the Wisconsin race or in upcoming races in Ohio and Texas. Words do matter, as do their origins. Ask Joe Biden, who took words from a British politician in 1988 without attribution and paid a high price.

Tuesday's outcome, the margin of victory and the split on the delegate count all will factor into how it affects the race. After last week's results, Wisconsin looked like a candidate to extend Obama's winning streak. That is still the way both campaigns see it. But the competition there has intensified in the final hours and seemingly small matters can take on unexpected significance. Which is why the two campaigns spent Monday morning trying to reset the expectations.

As a born and raised "wisconsinite" I take offense to borntoraisehogs comments about everyone being drunk all the time. This is not the place for such comments.

The weather is cold but that will not stop anyone from voting, it didn't for me.

I think the results will be surprising on the Democrat side, many Republications I know will not be voting as they feel McCain has sewed up the nomination.

The country seems to forget that there is more to Wisconsin than just Madison and Milwaukee. NE Wisconsin can cause upsets too.
John Gard the Republication shoe-in for the 8th Congressional District was trounced by Democrat Steve Kagen.

The voters here will vote on the candidates merits and both Democratic candidates televised many negative television ads

Gov Deval Patrick (a friend and supporter of Obama) defended Obama (http://tinyurl.com/yqymx9). That was not the outcome the Clintons were looking for. It was a pretty bizarre tactical maneuver for them to attempt to match two friends against each other. Hillary, you need better material. Another suggestion, instead of ambushing voters with spurious reasons to *not* vote for Obama (all of which folks have rejected wholesale), you must give us at least one single reason to vote *for* you.

What I find offensive are those who don't support Senator Obama imply that the almost 7 million people who have voted for him are a bunch of star-gazed idiots.

Does anyone find it interesting that the exit polls indicate that "educated"/"college-educated" people support Barack 3 to 1, what does that say about Senator Clinton supporters?

We are all entitled to support whomever we please for whatever reason(s) we please. We all have the right to advocate for our candidate, but the insults are unnecessary.

With that said, I do think it is insult to anyone with intelligence to imply that Senator Obama plagiarized one of his co-chairman speeches. Plagiarism means to "steal", Gov. Patrick has said he told Barack to use them. Should Barack attributed them, he could have but I don't think it was necessary, just as I didn't find it necessary when Senator Clinton said she was "fired up and ready to go," to attribute that term to Senator Obama.

another comment on the (incorrect) accusation of plagarism. One does not become president of Harvard law review by lifting others work. This is one of the most difficult and impressive positions in the country earned through original thought and writing. Note the selection to the Law review is ANONYMOUS so it is based on your abilities, not your connections.
Hillary has no comparable achievements although she also applied for Law review while in law school.

sgr_astar said, "It will be interesting to see if anyone could dig up Obama's school records and term papers to see if he had the habbit of taking other's work and claim to be his. There are smart students who do this all the time, and in most cases got away fine.... "
_______________________________________
The Clinton camp already tried this. Don't you remember they already posted one of his essays from Kindergarten.

Back to the same thing I always say. Lets look at the FACTS.

Obama used lines from a speech with permission. This is NOT plagerism. Hillary wrote "her" book with a co-author who was not credited. That IS plagerism.

...of course there is also the issue of substance vs. style. Obama has authored more bills in the Senate than Clinton, gotten more passed than Clinton, and has a higher successful pass rate than Clinton. What exactly HAS Clinton done besides fail on health care? What substance does she have in her speeches besides attacks on Obama?

Wisconsins are not "wacky" any more than any other state. What is "wacky" is people dismissing one state over another as insignicant. What is "wacky" is bothering to post anything so ridiculous. Just as the stereotype of a German is a lederhosen-wearing, beer-swilling Nazi, a stereotype of a Wisconsinite would be a beer-swilling idiot. Wisconsin is comprised of many hardworking farmers, blue collar workers, college students and highly educated professionals. I just hope that enough of the Wisconsin residents have seen through the Obama line of crap.

In a recent interview Clinton was asked "people are saying that if you are elected Bill will be running the country again, what do you have to say to this?". Her response was "every President turns to his spouse for advice, I often gave Bill council when he was President and I will count on his advice just as he did mine". With that said, as she enters the blue collar states, I can't believe that people buy into her. Her husband's NAFTA is what sent many of the jobs away creating the unemployment issues many face. A policy she now says she doesn't support and needs revised after admitting that she gave her husband council while he was in office. She is showing strong support from the factory worker and quite frankly it baffles me. She stands up for special interest groups and supported NAFTA, has millions of dollars in her bank account. WHY would any middle income person think that other than a few liberal views she cares about his lot in life?

This article includes a graph showing Bill and Hillary Clinton's net worth from 1973 to 2006 ($0 to $35 million). There are also links to various news agencies such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Newsweek and ABC News to support these net worth amounts. There are more links to some VERY disturbing articles showing what Slick Willie has been doing with his spare time after leaving the White House.

You might not want to read a few of these articles in a darkened room! Most of the articles may shock you.

I think I found out where HRC got that $5 million for her campaign! AND, these articles just might explain WHY the good Senator DOES NOT want to show the nation her tax returns until AFTER she is the Democratic nominee!

We all remember how honest she was during her hubby's sex scandal now that she wont even release her tax records and he was trully disbarred for lying. Ever wondered where the term Hillbilly came from?

Congratulations to Obama, the underdog with no name recognition not in the US or beyond the borders of the US is able to organize a compaign that sent Hillary's compaign crmbling, moving from one slogan to another, changing compaign managers, IF FROM DAY ONE SHE COULD NOT PUT THINGS IN HER CAMP(FAR SMALLER) RIGHT, HOW CAN SHE BE A PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD MOST POWERFUL DEMOCRACY. This is what we call classic leadership skills,BARAK OBAMA should asked the American people to question her about how can she handle the country if she could not handle her own compaign properly with her so called experience

Being a non US Citizen, the election does not effect me directly except to the extent of my business interests in the US and the welfare of my relatives settled there, green card holders, US citizens both natural and naturalized.

An important question that strikes me for both the candidates:

Is Obama in a tearing hurry to enter the White House - History apart. He has been on the national stage for less than four years. He probably was born after Jack Kennedy was assassinated. 2016 would not be too long a wait for him.

A word of caution. If he is the Democratic nominee are the vast and varied Americans ready to have a non-white as their President. In November, Republicans and Independents too would cast the balot in deiciding the electoral college booty. and if perchance, he loses in November, his career would be kayoed. A loss of a bright, energetic player on the national and international stage.

Hillary, she should remember 1984. The Walter Mondale - Geraldine Ferraro ticket took probably the worst beating in the recent history. Americans were not ready a quarter century earlier for a woman to be a heart beat away from Presidency. Are they ready now for a woman President?

Let every eligible voter do a soul searching before answering this question.

And today after eight years of Republican Government, the problems of economy, unemployment, the overseas war, etc. along with the anti incumbency factor, gives the Democrats a golden opportunity to regain the White House.

One hopes they dont squander this opportunity because of immature and partisan considerations and comments, in their quest for the nomination. Whatever the contenders say today against each other wil be ammunition for the Republicans and others when the final nominee starts stumpiong for the real battle.

People will eat hope instead of food.
They will pay hope instead of rent to their landlords.
They give hope juice instead of medicine to their children.
They take their children to hopepital if they get sick.
For entertainment they go to the prophet Al-obama rallies, get euphoric and faint.!!

With Obama's confession that he plagarised from the loser incompetent Governor of Massachusetts, his campaign is due for a free fall.
He will lose Wisconsin today, and March 4th primaries, but since he wasn't so dishonest on campaigns, Hillary will not ask him to be her Vice President.

Former Clinton Press Secretary (DEE DEE MYERS) speaks about the true C-h-a-r-a-c-t-e-r of the the woman who would be President (Hillary Clinton).

Time to open your eyes people. Mrs. Clinton is N-o-t what she pretends to be. How can a person with this type character get anything accomplished in Washington?

Search: PBS Clinton Years ... (Read this for yourself ... Other Clinton Administration folks speak out as well).

Q: Were people afraid of her? Were people afraid to speak out against her?

A: Yeah. And I think because not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around. It wasn't like she did it every day. I found that she wasn't the most direct person. Although that was very direct, that to me was the exception rather than the rule. Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience. She was not happy with me, but she never confronted me. She never had a conversation with me about it. She would go call Leon in and yell at him and then he'd have to call me in and say, "Mrs. Clinton is really upset about X. You said Y, and she disagrees with that, and you know, she wants you to fix it," or whatever. As opposed to her picking up the phone and calling me. Sometimes it's appropriate, I think, to go through the chief of staff because it's the chain of command. Maybe she's talking to him about six things and one of them is me. But there were times when I thought she should have dealt with me directly and she didn't.

...I didn't respect that. If you have a problem with me or anybody else, it doesn't mean she shouldn't try achieve whatever outcome she wanted to achieve. But I think there is a certain grace and I just think it's a bit better politics and personnel management to be direct.

THERE IS NO CHANGES WITH OBAMA EXCEPT THE MEDIAS HELP AT HIDING HIS RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE WAR AND BUSH. WHAT OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE AFRAID TO REALIZE. "Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."Obamas record shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, INCREASING STUDENT LOANS RATES AND FEES increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, human food or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace and voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions.Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. **He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Obama has no substance. He has provided no solutions.

"traction" was first used by Bill Bradley.
Obama the Immodest, as a previous poster put it, delivered the fateful lines as if he had thought them up. It's a close race, so any scrutiny is fair. I am put off by his immodesty, and by his wife's remarks that she is finally proud of the US. They aren't saviours, they're lawyers. We like to be bamboozled, obviously.

What really annoys me about Hillary's swiftboating of Obama the most is that it deflected a VERY GOOD POINT he made.
/
That her contention that words do not matter is WRONG. And that he "just" makes good speeches.
/
His point was that without inspiring words such as, "We believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." we would probably NOT be living in the United States of America.
/
That without GREAT LEADERS, who were able to COMMUNICATE A VISION, much of mankind's progress would not have occurred. And Obama was making an important point that would silence Hillary's criticism of him - that he makes good speeches!
/
And Hillary, knew that. So what did she do? She kepts the story from being about this landmark speech, and instead twists it into a story about the origination of the speech. How could she do it? Because journalists LOVE CONTROVERSY. CONTROVERSY SELLS.
/
Swiftboating at its best. I hope Hillary is proud of herself. She would have probably swiftboated FDR for his "nothing to fear but fear itself" speech.
/
Completely shameless.

Okay, so they were Deval Patrick's word-formulas. Credit to Patrick. But, the idea that words are important and do matter is the important argument here - an idea that Clinton derides. Hillary has been clutching at straws. First, the straws of the Michigan and Florida delegates, now, this.

What next? Has anyone ever heard of how dirty the government and politics is? This Larry character..funny how he is just now coming out with this garbage...sounds like a plot by Hillarys dirt campaign. And this lie detector test by this Larry...anyone with a brain knows that a sociopathic mind can beat a lie detector...but others have too and werent sociopaths. So pleaseeeee.....Im sure if Obama had done these things that he would have even considered running for president when such information can be dug up and brought out into the open. As far as Hillary...why dont you have jobs in the auto industry...thank the Clintons for that with their great trade agreement. Gee America..wake up and smell the coffee.

I'll take the HOPE. One needs to believe before one can act... People generally don't act upon things they don't believe in. Hillary has had 35 years in which to help us. If she had truly helped us, we would not be looking for help now.

I'll take the HOPE. One needs to believe before one can act... People generally don't act upon things they don't believe in. Hillary has had 35 years in which to help us. If she had truly helped us, we would not be looking for help now.

Like a train wreck - I couldn't stop reading these comments. I DID feel the passion tho in most of the comments, and I think "that's a good thing" (Martha Stewart I believe).

One strong theme I noticed was that HRC might actually not be ABLE to lose with dignity.

I read a Wall Street Journal article by Peggy Noonan entitled "Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?" on Feb. 8th., and actually sent a shortcut to my desktop so I could re-read it later. (The author may be a little biased in her reporting - but her premise here is a good one I think)

I NEVER knew for sure until now that this article just may be foretelling the future. What will happen if HRC DOES NOT WIN, or starts to slip more in the primaries? Will the Senator's obsession to win at all costs for whatever reason create a divided Democratic Party - and maybe even worse - a bitter, divided America?

I hope good statesmanship will prevail during these primaries and the election. There appears to be a much more gentle sway to the campaign this election year than I can remember in recent years.

The election of new leaders is one of the most sacred tasks of a free democratic society. The young, the elderly, the protectors of our freedom and the troubled middle class of our country deserve nothing less. AND America NEEDS this "Change" to be won fairly and for the good of a Great Nation.

People overthink the tiny, inconsequential things. I am one "kooky" Madison, Wisconsin liberal gay agnostic who is voting for Hillary. I agree with everything Tammy Baldwin says about her. She is the only candidate that has spoken to me about health care issues and provided a concrete answer. Obama is too full of empty optimism for my taste. Either way, maybe with a Democrat in the White House we can begin to repair the damage that has been done to our country and to begin to fix our reputation in the world. It's going to take a long time. And maybe we can even begin to repeal some of the hateful and unnecessary anti-gay laws that have been passed in some states, including here in Wisconsin. My focus is on getting Republicans out of office, not so much who wins the presidential primary.

The "REZKO" trial will start on March 3, 2008. I hope that Barack "Hussein" Obama finally has to talk about his relationship with REZKO.

There are 55 news articles related the REZKO matter. The 55 news articles are located at the Chicago Suntime newspaper. The address is www.suntimes.com then do a search.....REZKO...and all 55 news articles will appear.
ALL 55 NEWS ARTICLES ARE*****MUST READ ARTICLES****.

Just finished my latest pastime, looking into the minds of the average American through their posts to various topics presented by people with agendas.

The Writer of this article knows exactly what he is doing. P.T. Barnum had it right early on, "There's a sucker born every minute" This too shall pass. The world is big enough to hold everybody. To quote someone else "The Moral arc of the Universe is long and it bends toward Justice"

This smacks of desperation from the Clinton camp. First, they claim Senator Obama is 'just words' and then they try to attack his words. First of all, Patrick Deval is a good friend of the Senator who is campaigning with and for him- he himself says they write speeches together. Second, Hillary Clinton has lifted plenty of words and phrases from Senator Obama, and she is not campaigning with or for him! Third, repeating famous or common lines, such as 'I have a Dream', is not plagiarism. Finally, The uniqueness of Senator Obama's campaign is not in the turn of a phrase, it is in the strength of his ideas and his call to our nation to return to our better selves. Yes, it is also the strength of his cadence, his baritone, his measured speaking, that makes him easy to listen to, and that is just what is so difficult for Clinton to accept. This will backfire big time- Clinton has lifted piles of phrases from others, and even ghostwrote her own book without credit to the writer. Most of all, this shows again, like the 'kindergarten' material, the level to which her campaign is willing to stoop to try to stop a great man, a great thinker, a great doer, and a great orator.

"Senseless youngsters," kreisch? I'm 73, white and female and a ardent Obama supporter. "Senseless"? I have a BA and three MAs. What's more, most of the senior citizens who play bridge at the local center where I live are also Obama supporters. Kinda takes the wind out of your sails, doesn't it?

And as for that ridiculous charge of "plagiarism," the quotations Obama used from great orators of the past are so commonly known and easily identified that he would have been quilty of insulting any audience's intelligence had he thought it necessary to name each of the respective speakers. As for their words having been used by Deval Patrick in a similar manner, so what? Since, for example, advertisements are not copyrighted, companies appropriate material from other companies' clever ads all the time without liability.

What this really comes down to is that, after seven years of a president who can scarcely put three words together in a correct grammtical structure and has more malapropisms to his (dis)credit than any other national leader in modern history, it is so wonderful for the literate among us to hear lucid, articulate, even nobel speech coming out of a prospective candidate's mouth that we should be forgiven our tendency to leave Hamlin right on his heels. (Now, from what source did I "steal" that, you wiseguys?) It is to a large extent speech that separates us from the "lesser" animals. Don't sell it short

Words don't have meaning eh? Who are you kidding. I'm going to present the following words (King James) or one of his writers said "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". Now Mister Obama you have my permission and King James'permission to use it at any time.Just in case you get stumped.

The writer has no idea of how insulting this article is and that speaks volumes.

Another point to make about Barack Obama is that while hope and change are important to believe in, change is not always GOOD change. I live in Massachusetts and fell for the Deval Patrick rosing speeches and voted for him with regret. He's not all that popular in Massachusetts these days. Well the lights have been turned off and the elections are over, you need someone who is going to do the work and make all those promises happen. When they don't, or when they move in a direction that they weren't supposed to go, it's downright disappointing. I for one know that rosing speeches and words don't necessarily bring on "good" change. This could be why Barack Obama didn't win in Massachusetts even after the endorsement of both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on me. Massachusetts won't let that happen again.

The problem with Barack Obama using another candidates words practically verbatim is that he didn't turn a phrase, he lifted a speech of more than just a few words. He's a candidate that has not run his campaign on his experience, or his record, or on the issues. He's run his campaign on his slogan of hope and belief to stir his audience. To find out that those words aren't even his to begin with brings to question what else is not him. How can you believe a man's words if they're not his own? He says he's written two books, but you know, I'm a ghostwriter and I write books for big wigs all the time and their name gets put on the book, not mine. So that doesn't hold weight as well. How can you "believe" anything about Barack Obama?

Maybe the right question is "What's the matter with Obamamania?" Maybe Wisconsonites have been able to see thru the hype and delusion fed by media frenzy and a few good talking points? Maybe Wisconsonites supporting Hillary have figured out that Obama in means Hillary out, and while the Obamamonium is entertaining, our country and the free world are at stake, so lets go for reality not rhetorical hype? Maybe Wisconsonites have had time to see that Obama has nothing to offer but something new for the liberal media to trumpet?

Obama voted present in Illinois, and as you may have learned in 8th grade, but probably forgot, just like Hillary did, there are reasons why one would vote present.

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a "constitutional majority" to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a "present" vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote "present," it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote "present" or don't vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting "present" rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A "present" vote can send a signal to a bill's sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting "present" can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

Obama is intelligent, thoughtful and ready to be president. Against the war in Iraq since 2002, he was right. He will be right on day one in the White House!

When Hillary is ahead it's attributed to calculation and the Clinton machine, when Barak is ahead it's momentum and hopefull inspiration. The media has certainly gone easy on the Senator from Illinois.

The Clintons are becoming desperate and will do whatever it takes to slow down Obama...oh, yeah, they've done this before....are we surprised? Hillary being calculating and manipulative to get her way...hmmm, let's count FL & MI now, because I need those delegates....don't make me cry!

Come on now, plagiarism? Obaba & Patrick are friends and have collaborated in the past; Obama has said so in a speech last December. They talk about issues and like all politicians, use ideas, phrases and words that work.

Hillary started using "Fired up. Ready to Go"...anyone accuse her of stealing words? She has been using, "Take back our country" which is a Pat Buchanan quote, that he began using in 1992...the list goes on and on. I almost expected her to start singing "Change, change, change", when her experience and ready on day one message fizzled.

Time to get real, Obama knows how to write and speaks in an eloquent and inspirational manner....I have been to rally and live is an incredible experience.....electricity in the crowd. Hillary is a policy wonk and our country is looking for a leader. We had a CEO president the last 7 years and the experience has been truly regrettable.

Reading some of the comments...leave me to think...most of you need Jesus. I pity lots of you and I silently pray that you will be delivered from the ignorance that has plagued our nations for years.I challenge each of you take two minutes and really be honest with yourself about your thoughts. Some of you is still trying to hold on to that "superior thinking". Trust me when I tell you, this election is in God's hands and I believe he is also tired of the nonesense. It is 2008...and ... Enough already!!!
I challenge some of you to seek education...a mind is a terrible thing to waste...and waste is abundant in some of these excerpts. Ask God to help you with your struggle to accept reality and/or change because it's coming! It's coming and your ignorant words will no longer make a difference. Americans as a whole are becoming smarter...it is harder to sell to the youth, the people...the ignorance. Change is coming! Educate youself to accept it...I guarantee that you will feel better about it. With thoughts such as some of these posted...it must be miserable being you. Nonetheless, God bless you and may the best candidate, as God see fit, lead our Country back to one of the greatest!

An opportunity for change: Obama has the chance accept public financing and help change the way politics are run. He said he would do this. Now, when fundraising is seen as his strong suit, Obama is hedging... and may revert to private finnacing in the general campaign. I feel like I got ripped off in a McDonald's here: where the heck is my "change"?

For all you paternalistic people out there--could you please stop using phrases like "the Clintons" or "Mrs. Clinton" when referring to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton?! She is a United States Senator for goodness sake, not 42's trophy! Hillary Rodham could have gotten just as far in her career (or maybe farther!) had she mot married Bill Clinton. Yes, she has experience based on having been First Lady, but that doesn't lessen what she learned from 42's administration--lessons like not making promises you can't keep.

I am a voter from Chicago, who supported and contributed to see Obama become my Senator. Since he has become my Senator, he has voted 'present' 120 plus times and in the most agregious show of partisan politics, sided completely with his party, never reaching across the aisle as he claims, following the lead of Senator Durbin. As he should, but that shows someone who is green and malleable. Sounds like more BUSH to me.

But I question his genuousness because the entire time he was my Senator, he had another job...campaigning for President. How can he be MY Senator while doing that? He has burnt my bridge for using me and the voters of Illinois as a quick ticket to the White House without paying his dues first....and he says this is because He doesn't want to be tainted. PLEASE!

Representative Corinne Brown, the first African-American elected to congress in Florida, was just in Wisconsin, IN SUPPORT OF SENATOR CLINTON, and is quoted as saying something to the effect:
"If you think having experience doesn't matter, you're stupid,....it took me two years (after being elected to office) just to figure out where to go to the bathroom"

I am tired of the VISCIOUS and mostly unfounded slander Obama supporters are putting out there and yet, saying the Clinton Campaign is the one using negative campaigning.

If you think a politician with their roots in Chicago, my hometown, can escape without DIRTY FILTHY MONEY AND SLUM LORD funding, you are seriously in need of a reality check.

The clintons have finally reverted to gutter politics- I am surprised they were able to run a clean (except for Bills racial remarks before South Carolina)campaign for so long. That must have been a terrible strain on them. Imagine how it must feel to have the primary restructured in such a way as to insure your victory, then have to see a relatively unknown black male, with little national following, humiliate you.

I certainly hope that WI is not fooled by the ploys of the Clintons tomorrow. Hillary and her campaign is trully stooping to new lows to win.

Clintons claim to '35 years of experience', in my opinion, is worse that the use of famous words by Obama. By the way Hillary, where is your financial statements and the list of donors to the Clinton Library that you were going to present??? Now that's a news story that should be cover extensively by the media

First, EVERYONE is misrepresenting what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is UNAUTHORIZED usage of someone else's words. Deval Patrick simply donated his line of analysis to Obama to use during that Wisconsin dinner. And Deval Patrick and Barack Obama share the same campaign strategist for goodness sakes.

Obama only used TWO WORDS of Deval Patrick's anyways: "Just words!" The rest are part of our common currency of language "We hold these truths..." etc.

Secondly, Hillary is the one who should be accused of plagiarism. She lifted "turn the page..." and "fired up and ready to go" from Obama and she lifted parts of her Super Tuesday speech from Jimmy Carter, for goodness sakes!!

She makes me ill! I was dedicated to supporting her if she became the nominee against McCain. Now I will sit home in November if she is the nominee.

Would you have such an issue if you knew that these "senseless youngsters" were voting for Hillary.
Age doesn't define intelligence. Look around. There are plenty of people of all ages who can't even tell you who the V.P is.
All people want is a chance for a better future and when they look at Hillary, she is no longer what she was maybe 12 years ago. She has become a Washington drone like all the rest. She is desperate. Don't think she wouldn't do ANYTHING to win.

It's what's said in the talk. Details versus promises. No one has disputed that Hillary brings substance to the table.

She will change some of the things like NAFTA that didn't work as hoped in Bill Clinton's administration. That was a joint free trade initiative with Republicans, but that's also what happens when you do joint things with the Republicans.

The Clinton camp keep saying, enough talk.... what is she expecting him to do...leave the campaign trail...stop giving speeches. Give up. How else does one win the Presidency other than talk...Not everyone can rely on running on their spouses last name recognition. Clinton supporters have to ask themselves the honest question. Would she be one contest away from winning the Democratic Nomination if she did not remain married to Bill Clinton? Obama supporters have their issues, but I have rarely went 5 minutes into conversation with a Hillary supporter without Bill Clinton's record coming into the equation.

I am not at all surprised that Senator Obama would fail to credit Governor Patrick for words from a 2006 speech. You are talking about a candidate who has been given a clean ride by the media so far and when the republicans unleash their investigators on Obama--he want even be able to prove that he bought his mansion legally in Chicago, without help from Tony Rezko--who is now in jail awaiting trial. The democrats will lose control of both houses of Congress with Obama at the top of the ticket.

If Hillary is the "solutions" candidate, then why didn't she find a solution to the health care problem when she had the opportunity and authority to do so? Why should we trust someone to find solutions who has tried and not proven they can do the job.

It seems the candidate of "solutions" is long on rhetoric and short on a record of achievement.

Eward2, unless someone clarifies better, the owner wanted to sell both because no one can get to the lot but the house owner. Where I come from that's called a backyard.

The parts that are fatal here are having made a career funnelling taxpayer dollars to this guy and then going to him after being elected Senator and getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of financial help.

Republicans spent 70 million investigating $40,000 the Clintons lost in a land investment. They will have a field day with a land deal like this with a Syrian.

The other is the lying about how he knows Rezko. He told the whole nation in the debate that this was someone he did about five hours of legal work for a non-profit years ago, and instead it's someone who owns his backyard.

The Hillary Clinton campaign is doing all it can to make the 2008 election a miserable experience for all Americans. LET US NOT LET HER SUCCEED IN THAT EFFORT! We should not prolong the Democratic Party nomination any longer. We have a leading candidate with momentum -Sen. Obama.

Voters in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, Hawaii, RI and elsewhere go ahead and vote en masse for Sen. Obma, to put Hillary Clinton out of her misery, and save us all from her scurrilous allegations and nasty and negative campaign!

Uncommitted delegates and super-delegate, switch to Sen. Obama, and do not delay any longer. What are you waiting for -to witness a nastier campaign from Hillary Clinton, and further damage to the chances of Democrats to win the Presidency in 2008?

The dubious plagiarism charge by the Hillary Clinton campaign is an act of desperation. Any American with commonsense, at all knows that's all it is -DESPERATION, DESPERATION, DESPERATION!

The best choice for this country is still Clinton. That's what takes to fix this terrible economy, and then we talk about something else, war, health care, education, ... Obama's economic plan is to print more $100 bills to give out troubled homeowners. I wonder how far that can go. yeah, he is change and future and all that ... he made experience a terrible thing to have. This country has gone insane buying into that. Well, it is hard to overestimate the intelligence of american voters these days. After all, Bush/Cheny were voted twice to office.

Since the beginning, Senator Obama has been telling people what they want to hear.
He is a wonderful preacher and he can handle thousands of people and make them tremble. He reminds me of very successful church preachers that make handicap people walk or make their sicknesses disappear. He would be great in a huge church but elect him to the highest office and make him Commander in Chief of the USA with two years in the Senate, that is going too far. After listening to many of his speaches,I have not been able to find "the beef"; why? he is very inexperienced. He borrows phrases that many other politicians have used to get the effect he wants.He is very inteligent.He can fool many young and naive people but I want somebody that it's going to get us out of a terrible approaching recession, cure the horrible deficit we have and sooth us from the hellish 8 years we have endured with President Bush.

It isn't plagiarism when the friend you're borrowing the words from, has not only given his A-OK, but was the one to suggest using the quote in the first place.

I think it's extremely naive not to realize that every politician out there employs speech writers and/or utilizes campaign staff and political allies to fill that roll at times... it's just that some rely on them more heavily than others. Obama less, Hillary more so.

Hillary would be hard-pressed to compose anything on her own that would reach the inspirational and motivating heights that Obama can hit with his words. She's a cold woman and you can feel that in her speeches.

The point is both the house and the adjacent lot had to be sold together. The seller wouldn't sell them separately. Obama couldn't have bought the house without the lot being sold at the same time. The real estate agent was very clear about this on NBC Nightly News.

You can draw your own inference. However, it sounds like Rezko's purchased of the lot helped Obama secure this home.

For those of you who have a keen interest in women's health & civil rights issues I direct you to the changed support from Clinton to Obama by such luminaries & organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL & Kate Michelman.

This changed support came about for three main reasons.
1. Senator Obama has a 100% record with these organizations. Even voting "present" when asked to by them for tactical reasons in the Illinois Senate.
2. Senator Obama was the only US Senator to answer the call and work to protect a womens right to choice in South Dakota when it was threatened.
3. The Clinton campaign sent mailers and started a 'whisper campaign" in New Hampshire that these folks found so fraudulent that they switched their support to the candidate they most believe will support their agenda and further the goal of unifying the country.

Uh,uh. Not plagiarism when the fellow who used the phrase gives you permission. There was another time he used his phrase and gave him the credit. If the candidates had to credit each phrase, they would never get through a speech. Phrases like Obama used belong to the public domain so I can't imagine this is even plagiarism by the strictest test.

Hey, I'm just a middle-aged lady from Wisconsin. I don't necessarily LIKE either of the democratic candidates, but I want to have hope that some things will change. From Clinton, I get the impression she will say or do anything to get in the Oval Office. I just left a position I enjoyed because of a toxic manager. Why would I elect one as president? Obama will have my vote tomorrow.

Besides, can ANYONE take another four years of hearing who the other Clinton isn't exactly having sex with????

This is a manufactured issue if there of was one. Why is Balz playing along, is he doing Hillary's bidding?

KevinSchmidt, far be it for me to defend Hillary but free trade doesn't equal slave labor. There are plenty of working people in other countries who would be out work if we put up high trade barriers. The last time protectionism was tried here, it accelerated the Great Depression (read up on the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif Act).

Truthbetold--the reason why most of the media is ignoring the story is because they assume it to be a vicious smear (and do you know it is not?). The political press started to warn that the Clintons would have a lot of dirt that they would be throwing if they ever had their backs against the wall--but they have also said that the Clinton's dirtiest stuff is completely wiped of their fingerprints. Nothing is too low for Billary. They are simply disgusting.

I detest Hillary more each day. Negative advertising, swift boat ploys... reminds me of a certain Republican that is now in office and his Rovian tactics. Just ugly.

In touch with the average worker and family? Please. Her health care mandate would penalize (fines and garnished wages) anyone unable to afford her health insurance plans. She's going to CRIMINALIZE millions of Americans. How does that help anyone struggling to pay utilities, keep their home, buy gasoline and groceries? It doesn't. It helps the health insurance industry.

I just do not get how folks can see Obama as an "empty suit" or "full of hot air." Case in point: Hillary's main economics adviser is a lawyer, and Obama's main economic advisors are brilliant economists. I don't know, but it scares me to have a lawyer dreaming up economic policy.

For all of Obama's pretty speeches, the rookie has yet to utter the O word, "Overpopulation". . . . And he's suppost to be for change?! . . . Let's face it the only change candidate still in the race is Ron Paul -- And while I agree with 80% of his changes, it's the other 20% that I have such big, big problems.

The two Democratic candidates are politically close; And Obama has proved himself to be just as much a politico as Hillary. He even thinks that a podunk speech against the Bush's War resolution was tantamount to a vote against it in the Senate -- if he believes that, he doesn't belong in White House. And if he really knows better but just fooling us, then he's not a change candidate. . . . Let least Hillary is the best informed and experienced of all the candidates.

Has anyone ever figured out how Billary was worth about $2 million in 2002 and now is worth about $35 million? I saw a graph of their reported income (which Hillary has to do for the Senate, even though she doesn't have to reveal sources or details of the income) and it goes straight up after 2003. Now what event that started in 2003 is making a huge amount of money for certain people among the elites? Can you spell I-R-A-Q? Is this the reason why Hillary refuses to divulge her tax returns until after the nomination is secured? Probably no one will pester her after that--all the bigwig Republicans are making scads of money off the war. Ask yourself why Bill maintained that a general election between Hill and McCain would be so very civil as to be boring? Also, ask yourself why there is so much secrecy about the funding for the Clinton Library (it is rumored that a very large donation came from a Saudi prince--one wonders what was exchanged for it). Also, why are none of the papers from the Clinton White House available for scrutiny? Why is Bill Clinton receiving $20 million from another Saudi source? Ask yourself why sooo many former Clinton friends (Dick Morris, David Geffen, etc.) now absolutely loathe them? If Billary Clinton gets back into the White House, be afraid...be very afraid. The last time they were there, they rented out the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for donations...

All the great orators lifted material from others including Churchill. This is simply a red herring and has nothing to do with the important issues of the day. I can only imagine this will backfire on Clinton.

According to NBC News, both the house and the adjacent land had to be sold together. The real estate agent that handled the transaction made these remarks on Nighly News. Obama wasn't interested in buying the land, and that's when Rezko stepped in and purchased the lot.

Wow, the Clinton's are showing their true colors. It makes me sick. The thought of four more years of this kind of crap... The Clintons and the Bushes are smelling more and more the same the more Hillary gets into this.

Come on people, wake up, can't you see what the Clinton's are doing? Do you want more of this? Haven't you had enough of this?

Obama has to prove, seriosuly, himself is not just a preacher. It is not easy, because he talks big, high, empty, ... After a long thought, a grown-up wouldn't so easly believe anything he says. His blast of the past simply shows his contempt for god experience, in many ways, prove he isn't up to the tough job. Stop bragging, obama.

I don't have any idea of the truth of the guy, haven't and won't be watching the youtube, etc., but apparently he has been at this since last years and has filed suit against Obama and his campaign manager for trying to intimidate him, keep him quiet, etc.

Don't have any idea how true that is either, but this little noisemaker problem for Obama has nothing to do with anyone else's campaign.

OMG Hillary's at it again it should read whats my line not you stole my line.This is all that she can come up with I didn't see Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King raising hobs about it or anyone one else but Hillary.Now she's got this great plan for jobs sure wish she had used that here in N.Y. before 2 or 3 million moved out because of the lack of jobs,but again thats the Clintons pie in the sky,a chicken in every pot but no pot they went to Mexico.Hallary is alot like the scum on a pond blow it aside and all you find is stagnet water which is kin to her retoric.!!!

In 1970 Les Aspin was running for Congress in the Democratic primary in Wisconsin's First Congressional District against a man named Doug LaFollette.

LaFollette had produced a slick tabloid brochure, chock full of quotes from common people about him and playing to his supposed family ties to Fighting Bob LaFollette.

The Kenosha News broke a story that showed the quotes were liberally copied from the campaign literature of Massachusetts Democrat Michael Harrington.

It also found that LaFollette was a only a shirttail relation of Fighting Bob and his family--progressive icons even in the '60s and '70s.

As I recall it, the headline was "LaFollette Family tree just doesn't dig a Doug."

What was never reported was that the Aspin campaign was behind the "revelations"--Aspin was well connected with the Harrington organization--and in good measure due to this, Les went on to a slender victory.

He later became Bill Clinton's secretary of defense. (And LaFollette later became Wisconsin Secretary of State.)

Jason Linkins, writing in the Huffington Post, is reporting that "Obama, Patrick Collaboration Noted Specifically By Globe Back In April 2007."

Thus the Obama "revelation" seems to have been well cooked in the smarmy ovens of Clinton Oppo-land.

Of course, no one ever lost money betting on the sleeziness of a Clinton campaign.

In 1970 Les Aspin was running for Congress in the Democratic primary in Wisconsin's First Congressional District against a man named Doug LaFollette.

LaFollette had produced a slick tabloid brochure, chock full of quotes from common people about him and playing to his supposed family ties to Fighting Bob LaFollette.

The Kenosha News broke a story that showed the quotes were liberally copied from the campaign literature of Massachusetts Democrat Michael Harrington.

It also found that LaFollette was a only a shirttail relation of Fighting Bob and his family--progressive icons even in the '60s and '70s.

As I recall it, the headline was "LaFollette Family tree just doesn't dig a Doug."

What was never reported was that the Aspin campaign was behind the "revelations"--Aspin was well connected with the Harrington organization--and in good measure due to this, Les went on to a slender victory.

He later became Bill Clinton's secretary of defense. (And LaFollette later became Wisconsin Secretary of State.)

Jason Linkins, writing in the Huffington Post, is reporting that "Obama, Patrick Collaboration Noted Specifically By Globe Back In April 2007."

Thus the Obama "revelation" seems to have been well cooked in the smarmy ovens of Clinton Oppo-land.

Of course, no one ever lost money betting on the sleeziness of a Clinton campaign.

Obama was NEVER accused of any wrong-doing in connection with Tony Rezko. Rezko likes hanging around politicians and doing things for them. Guess what! If you check the Wikipedia page on Rezko, you will see him with an arm each around...wait for it...Bill and Hill! Why do Clinton people keep bringing up the same old ridiculous stuff when they have soooo very much in their background that smells to high heaven??

jayjunk3 wrote: "1) A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (reference ABC News)"

The most imnportant part you're missing is that Rezko bought the $625,000 property for Obama, amd it's part of his mansion grounds. Obama went to this political mentor of his despite the fact that Rezko had just been indicted.

And this was the first thing Obama did three years ago when elected Senator. That shows his judgement and closeness to this Syrian slumlord who walked away from 17 taxpayer funded housing developments in Obama's state senate district.

And still Obama was in this political corruption agent's pockets just three years ago. Obama has done nothing but run for president since them. And now Rezko's indictment turns into a trial this month, with Rezko jailed as a flight risk after mysteriously receiving millions of dollars from the middle east.

And people think we should vote Obama commander in chief? Ain't going to happen folks. The Republicans will make sure everyone knows about this come October.

Even if its plagiarism, it works and the meaning is clear. The time for the same old political "fiends" is out. It is time for a change. Let us have a FRESH,NEW and COHESIVE method to clean up the mess created over the BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH era. Bring an end to jobs being shipped abroad at our childrens expense and get rid of the revolving door in Washington. PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN vote for CHANGE!

Folks, perhaps we can replace the usual "X is a hack" or "Y is a shill" with anti-dittos. Name calling adds nothing to the discourse. If your entire post is premised on the mistaken thought that the writer is in the bag for some candidate opposed to your own, you've been drinking way to much Koolaid. (R)

I'll avoid quoting anything particular, but there are some folks over-invested in a particular candidate. [Paulites excepted, one can never overdo it for the good doctor.]

One gut problem for HRC is that she feels more like a Republican as time goes on, and the country is fed up with it. She's waffled once too often on Iraq, and the attack ads sure to arrive soon are going to leave Obama the high ground.

As for preparation, who was Lincoln when elected? Teddy Roosevelt was a young Turk when he took over. Kennedy was young but unafraid, and hired top people; they would challenge him and it didn't bother him. He enlisted their minds for the country, to our benefit. Hillary's fear gives power to old followers, and of course Bill, who's getting a bit scarey of late, like a big old stag in a bad mood.

One gut problem for HRC is that she feels more like a Republican as time goes on, and the country is fed up with it. She's waffled once too often on Iraq, and the attack ads sure to arrive soon are going to leave Obama the high ground.

As for preparation, who was Lincoln when elected? Teddy Roosevelt was a young Turk when he took over. Kennedy was young but unafraid, and hired top people; they would challenge him and it didn't bother him. He enlisted their minds for the country, to our benefit. Hillary's fear gives power to old followers, and of course Bill, who's getting a bit scarey of late, like a big old stag in a bad mood.

One gut problem for HRC is that she feels more like a Republican as time goes on, and the country is fed up with it. She's waffled once too often on Iraq, and the attack ads sure to arrive soon are going to leave Obama the high ground.

As for preparation, who was Lincoln when elected? Teddy Roosevelt was a young Turk when he took over. Kennedy was young but unafraid, and hired top people; they would challenge him and it didn't bother him. He enlisted their minds for the country, to our benefit. Hillary's fear gives power to old followers, and of course Bill, who's getting a bit scarey of late, like a big old stag in a bad mood.

Inexperienced windbag! Think people...he does not write his own speeches...and that's all you got with this guy..get real we already have seen what an inexperienced pres can do...8 years of Bush!!!

I'd rather see Mccain screw it up for another 4 years than this guy.

Posted by: cleocat | February 18, 2008 03:50 PM

_________________________________________________

I guess he will be Disbarred like Bill Clinton he broke the Law.

Shillery you guys are not usually this desparte. Hey why are all you women supporting a women with a husband the cheated and she stayed and it was 5 or 6 women. Damn have some respect for yourself HILLBILL

If Hillary runs the White House like she runs her campaign she wouldn't be all that much better than George W. Bush! Missed opportunities, arrogance, bad strategy, a sense of entitlement, an overemphasis on loyalty rather than competence in filling critical positions, questionalbe judgement, etc.

These campaigns are the biggest enterprizes that either Obama or Hillary have ever run. Obama's works; Hillary's doesn't.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit ..." These words were written by Thomas Jefferson and are included in the Declaration of Independence. Were these words or ideas his own? Absolutely not. Maybe my text from high school or my copy from the National Archives are deficient, but they do not contain either a foot note nor an end note attributing the words and the ideas to John Locke. John Locke had previously WRITTEN these words. Either we are a nation of liars and idea-thieves from our origins or there are times when permission has been granted or assumed explicit or implicit to share ideas without attribution.

As my comment may suggest, I am a member of the Obama cult. I am guessing that Mr. Balz is reading this; I want to extend my gratitude to you. Until I read the comments deriding your article as biased, I did not read a lean. I read a solid journal listing facts and measuring their possible impact on the electorate as ANALYSIS. Besides, Dan, how could you be a Hillary advocate when so many of us know that you are really a Cheney shill. That was a joke. Thanks Dan, keep up the good work.

If anyone is truly interested in the men and power behind Obama read this instead of listing to his fluff speeches about how he is going to "change" the world. His kind of change is nothing this country needs. Granted, it doesn't bode well for either Clinton or Bush, we as Americans are just under the "impression" that we live in a Democracy.

I think that it does matter if someone uses parts of another man's speech. Quoting MLK, JFK or whoever is a different thing. "I have a dream" is so well-known that it became part of global knowledge. Over here in Germany, that speech is analysed in school. Everybody knows who said that.

It is different with a part of the speech of a governor. If he had said "a good friend of mine once said...", everything would be fine, but now he stands there as a man who lifted eloquent words from someone else and as a man who tries to make us believe that these clever words were his.

What makes the attempt at deception even worse is that Patrick declared that they know that there would be trouble, but that they thought that they could get away with it, because they believed that the speech was obscure enough for that.
They knew that it was wrong.
They knew that there were alternatives. they did it nevertheless.

I am a student right now and I have to sign a statement accompanying every term paper I hand in that I wrote the paper myself and that I mentioned the source of any quote by name, no matter if I paraphrase or quote verbatim. I guess that as a professor of law, Obama is aware of the legal problems involved in his actions. A dairy farmer from whereever can try to claim that he was not aware of any wrongdoings, but not a professor of law, if you ask me.

The knight's shiny armor starts to show more and more rust, dirt and dents...

And a note to the people who claim that Obama has a monopoly on Change, Hope and Inspiration: don't you think that Hillary Clinton, running as a female candidate inspires thousands of women all over the USA? Don't you think that a female President would bring Change and Hope as well?

I do and I hope that she keeps on going. If I were allowed to vote in your election, she would be my Choice.

These charges of "plagiarism" are the best Billary can come up with? Is this the kind of small-potato, gnatlike attacks we would get if Hillary had been on track to take on McCain. The Dems are fortunate that the sinking Clinton campaign has only a few more futile contests. Eight and counting.

The problem we have with Obama is not that he is not educated enough, or his stances on the issues, it is the character issue, whether be, drug issue, plagirism, not being frank about his Muslim heritage and his gay problems (by the way I don't think there is nothing wrong about being a Muslim or being gay), his broken pledge he made last year with Mccain about campaign financing.

In a NY times article last year, the harvard years of Obama has been very favorably described. However, the author pointed out a very critical flaw of this man: he seem to agree with everyone on different sides at the same time and no one knows his position. The article also pointed out this could be a fatal problem if he runs in the general election. I think the reason for this is that he can really appreciate the arguments on each side. I believe in a way he can be perceived as a fair person. Based on this NY times article, I think he make good judge, or editor, but may not be a very good president.

In a NY times article last year, the harvard years of Obama has been very favorably described. However, the author pointed out a very critical flaw of this man: he seem to agree with everyone on different sides at the same time and no one knows his position. The article also pointed out this could be a fatal problem if he runs in the general election. I think the reason for this is that he can really appreciate the arguments on each side. I believe in a way he can be perceived as a fair person. Based on this NY times article, I think he make good judge, or editor, but may not be a very good president.

So you are comfortable with having senator McCain stack the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal bench with more far right judges and justices in the fashion of our current President? I find that thinking most curious for someone who purports to be a life long democrat.

Interesting how all these "lifelong democrats who would never vote for Obama" are cropping up. The polls say otherwise. The polls also show, if you credit McCain with a win in any state he leads by >5%, that he already has 282 EV's against Clinton. That Obama wins independents by 22 points against McCain while he loses them by 21 points. That Clinton's unfavorables are at their highest ever, 53%.

It is Her Majesty Hillary Clinton who is guilty of plagiarizing the Republican war in Iraq. She had no problem banging their war drums and supporting the way by adopting Republican warmongering. What a pathetic miserable failure.

I don't know how any decent human being with a brain can buy the BS spewing out of her vindictive and hateful campaign.

And just to add, I went to the wingnut sites hannity.com and worldnetdaily.com that these spammers are posting, and even THEY don't believe him. Well, about 10% believe him, and the other 90% are laughing at those 10%.

As an Obama supporter but someone who understands how critically important it is to have a democrat elected as President, I find the level of vitriol and enmity both Senator Obama and Clinton supporters hurl at each other disturbing.

Let's not lose sight of the big picture, namely that we can't afford to have Senator McCain elected President because as a way to show his the hard right that he really is their guy, he may be in position to appoint possibly 3 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

I hope you all ponder that thought and understand what the implications are for our country in having a nest of far right U.S. Supreme Court justices. Wasn't it just the other day that Justice Scalia, in an interview in Austria, remark that waterboarding in his view was not torture and not unconstitutional.

So before you both bash each other into pudding, remember who are really running against.

Obama is absoulutly right, words are important, they elicit all kinds of emotions. "I have a dream" brings up civil rights and the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King JR., "We hold these truths to be self evident," brings up patriotism, solidarity. And of course the other words he has frequently used in his speeches across the country. an excerpt from Malcom X "they are trying to bamboozle ya, hoodwink ya, the okie dokes, You all know about the okie dokes don't ya." Well Malcom X termed the words okie dokes as a racial slur against all white people. I've studied race relations for years and this term was akin to "cracker" Its equally offensive and repugnant as the "N" word. So by all means, pay close attention to his words and vocabulary, he's insulting the white "folk" as he also terms whites. His racial bias and baiting is subtle but no less apparent.

While keeping most of the sick and stupid postings, WP choose to remove my comments about Sen Obama's intellectual achievements: president of Harvard Law Review and the lecturership at UC. People need to know the things exactly as they are. Obama never mention the nature of this journal, and how he got on the board and got elected. Does a lecturer position who taught constitution give him the authority as an expert on the subject?

I agree that the plagiarism angle here is a bit exaggerated. After all, Obama borrowed from a friend and supporter who would no doubt have gladly offered him the words to use. That said, the counter claim that Clinton did the same by using the word "change" or "fire it up" is silly. These are common words/phrases used by everyone. What Obama did was make a very strong rhetorical argument (not a single word or phrase) using specific language and examples. The two situations are not comparable in any way.

But I reacted negatively to this speech for totally different reasons. I was disturbed because Obama was not countering Clinton's critism (no substance in his rhetoric) by adding the substance, but instead by arguing that good speeches were enough! As if the presidency were a prize for a speech contest. And then there was the immodest implication that Obama the candidate was somehow in the same league as the founding fathers, FDR, JFK and MLK.

He should be careful here. I'm sure it's exciting to have so many treating you like the Second Coming, but he shouldn't give the impression that he's let that adoration go to his head.

The impression that the Clintons will say or do anything no matter how lame or ridiculous to get elected just keeps getting stronger. Now I hear that they favor letting Florida and Michigan's delegates back in despite their agreement not to. What kind of pres would she be.. one who cant tell the truth.. kinda like GW.

Senator Barack Obama amusingly tells his supporters that the old political establishment wanted him to wait and spend more time stewing in the U.S. Senate where they could boil hope right out of him before he ran for the presidency. A funny line yet one spoken with the ring of truth. Fortunately for a great many and growing number of American citizens, Barack decided not to wait.

But unfortunately, it is increasingly becoming apparent that the old establishment Clintons have also decided not to wait to commence boiling hope out of Barack. Indeed, the Clintons have taken their stewing recipe to a new level to the point that they are seriously on the way to boiling hope right out of the Democratic Party if not America itself.

Desperation calls for desperate actions but the Clintons recent stewing goes beyond the pale. Going way beyond their recent (but anticipated) dive into the sad pool of negative ads, the Clintons have also launched a drive to seat the previously agreed to ineligible Michigan and Florida State delegates "as is". As in based on election results favoring Senator Hillary Clinton and wherein one state did not even have Senator Barack Obama on the ballot (Michigan) and the other state Hillary with prescience celebrated her non-eligible win in on the night of it (Florida).

This is not to say that the critical issue of seating these ineligible state delegates is undeserving of resolution in the best interest of the Democratic Party and more importantly the disenfranchised voters impacted by their respective state leader's unilateral decision to knowingly break their own National Democratic Party's rules by moving the date of their state elections up. Resolution of this critical issue definitely is in the best interest of everyone involved including all of the states and their respective voters that have followed the rules. To his credit and in the best interest of everyone, Senator Obama recognizes the critical importance of coming up with a solution that is fair to both candidates.

But it is to say that to her great discredit, Hillary's rapid descent into practicing attack style politics as usual and her win at all costs insistence on seating ineligble Michigan and Florida state delegates "as is" match with her willingness to go to the mat to have them seated as such is unequivocally unfair.

Such a transparently undemocratic "solution" put forth solely in the best interest of Senator Hillary Clinton by Senator Hillary Clinton is only deserving of great disdain, likely reflective of her style of mandating solutions to critical issues, and truly represents the saddest recipe ever for......

I think you're a little Hillary obsessed. I support Senator Obama but you are way over the top in portraying her like she is a sociopath. For goodness sakes, let's support who we prefer but do it in a dignified way.

I am going to support the democratic nominee, whoever it is because we can't afford to have Senator McCain, who is morphing into a right wing lap dog, pick possibly 3 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court that are Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito clones. The nest President may have an opportunity to appoint 3 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court as the average age of each justice is 68. Consider what the ramifications are if a republican is elected.

Hey dems and thoughtful independents and republicans, let's see the big picture and not be so highly partisan and obnoxious in our support.

Someone made reference to "Obama's work?" as if the Senator from Ohio hadn't done anything. If I recall, he just got done kicking Hillary's butt by 20 points in 8 straight states. That seems like good work in the past 2 weeks. The idea that Hillary can break 49% in a general election is ludicrous. She's get stomped by an angry 103 yr old man who wants to bomb Iran, China, North Korea, and Cuba. Let's hope Democratic voters continue to vote for Obama so we can avoid our usual embarrassment in November at the hands of a candidate with clearly stupid ideas.

Obama thought he will win Wisconsin easily because he was ahead by double digits. He said I wouldn't need to have a debate. So he refused to participate in the debate. but the latest polls show that both candidates
are in statistical ties.

This is the the nature of narcistic people. People are smarter than Obama thinks.
The corporate media are giving Obama a free ride Because they know Hillary is a more formidable force against Republican. She is not like John Kerry to allow the Republicans to swift boat her.

There is nothing left that they hadn't tell about her, everything about her is out of closet,
Once the primaries are over, and if Obama is elected as the nominee, they start to attack him too.

Imagine what Obama is going to say when his resume is compared to Mccain's foreign policy experience, defense experience and knowledge, and the question of the security. and when they start to scare people about terrorism again.

Obama thought he will win Wisconsin easily because he was ahead by double digits. He said I wouldn't need to have a debate. So he refused to participate in the debate. but the latest polls show that both candidates
are in statistical ties.

This is the the nature of narcistic people. People are smarter than Obama thinks.
The corporate media are giving Obama a free ride Because they know Hillary is a more formidable force against Republican. She is not like John Kerry to allow the Republicans to swift boat her.

There is nothing left that they hadn't tell about her, everything about her is out of closet,
Once the primaries are over, and if Obama is elected as the nominee, they start to attack him too.

Imagine what Obama is going to say when his resume is compared to Mccain's foreign policy experience, defense experience and knowledge, and the question of the security. and when they start to scare people about terrorism again.

To quote a person's words or phrases do not constitute plagiarism ,to copy a comlete paragragh or sentenses without use the quotation mark is plagiarising, any professor can tell you that. In the Obama case, there is no doubt in my mind that he has committed a Plagiarising crime! It is as Obama said only a side show,but the importance of this matter is that Obama has shown his true dishonest character.

I support Obama but let's have some intellectual honesty here you college students and graduates and recognize that Senator Obama should have stated that he was quoting Governor Patrick. By not doing so, he opened himself up to a legitimate charge of plagarism. Whether it will have any impact on how people in Wisconsin vote is debatable but it was not Senator Obama's finest hour in being so clumsy in not attributing those lines to the Massacusetts governor.

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified
candidate for president based on her "record," which she says includes
her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or "co-president" -
and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that
record includes:

1. As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over healthcare reform, a
process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill
Bradley and Pat Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that
she would "demonize" anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she
couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own
party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the
House and Senate.

2. Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female attorney general.
Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to
withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno.
Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake."

3. Hillary recommended Lani Guanier to head the Civil Rights Commission.
When Guanier's radical views became known, she had to withdraw her name.

4. Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince
Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department,
White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later
imprisoned; Foster "committed suicide," and Kennedy was forced to resign.

5. Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig
Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When
Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI
files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by
the White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him.
(FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee
in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring
Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office,
after serving seven presidents for over 30 years.)

6. In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends, the
Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could
be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel
Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement"
and their reputations ruined. After a 30-month investigation, only one,
Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White
House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than
two hours.

7. Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the "bimbo eruption
squad" and scandal defense; urging her husband not to settle the Paula
Jones lawsuit; refusing to release the Whitewater documents, which led
to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor after $80 million
of taxpayer money was spent. Starr's investigation led to Monica
Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.

---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury.

---- And Bill was impeached by the House.

---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction
of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, "I do not
recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath).

8. Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of
the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for
example, the First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each
year) was decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic
ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists'
depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas."

- Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had
never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get
Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support.
Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to
get financial support.

- Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in
White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

- In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the "woman card" by
portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.

- Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National
Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their
time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and
her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those
records.)

- As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major
legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to
the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of
workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.

- Hillary's one notable vote, supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she
has since disavowed.

I wouldn't expect these Hillary supporters to appreciate nuance, but here's Mark Schmitt from TAP:

Obama's precise statement was, and has always been, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." That's an artful statement, and it's not artful in a "meaning of 'is'" sense -- it's exactly the right answer. A commitment to "preserve a publicly financed election" would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, "Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers out there, one by one respected journalists are falling to Obamania, becoming glassy-eyed and coming out with nonsensical, lyrical articles rationalizing how Obama can do this or that or accomplish this or that, without any merit to their rationalizations. They're addicted to Obama-porn and smoking Obama-crack.

The most outstanding achievement of Sen Obama was that he had been elected the president of the Harvard Law review, a student run law journal which is independent of the law school. The editing board consists of 40-ish members from the 2nd students. Part of the articles published in the journal are peer reviewed. Most other papers are reviewed and voted by the editors and the board. The academic significance of the journal is unclear, but to be on the editing board and the president seem very prestiguous. The selection to be on the editing board is a bit complicated. Half of the students on the board are selected based on their grade standing and the performance on a writing competition. The other half are determined in the dark based on some untangible qualifications, such as race etc. Obama claim he got elected because he won a writing competition, but have kept very low key on his harvard years.
I am very interested in reading the wining paper.

Obama was not a professor at U of C, but a lecturer. People should make distinction here, because lecturer's work is mostly teaching and do not involve much research. Even though he tought constitution, that does not mean he is expert on the subject, as he claims.

it's that he is elevating himself to their level of service and struggle and he hasn't realy done anything yet to deserve to be in their league

and those of us who watched JFK and MLK struggle resent that he places himself in that category

speaks of a hugh ego there

he needs to prove himself to me alot more than these speeches

sorry, i need detail

and moving on from the speeches, he took Clinton's economic plan and called it his, he uses alot of Edwards plans and calls them his, he says nothing at first, lets his opponents put out the information, then he re-writes it and calls it his
own

he left his name on the ballots in case he won - why else would he NOT take his name off?

he is no saint, he is a good man and i like him but when people loose their marbles over empty speeches, you take a second look to see what the hype is - and that mostly what I am finding- hype

i wonder why an aspiring man who is black has an all white male campaign management team and why he pays women less, and then says "change" is coming to america

Hillary has gone nuts. After her lose in Iowa, when people started saying that people voted for 'change' which was Obama's slogan, Hillary started saying 'I am the one for change. I have changed for the past 35 years.
'. What Hillary did was plagiarism. She just copied Obama's slogan. Now she is blaming Obama for plagiarism. What is wrong with that lady. Has she run out of other things to find fault with Obama?

She went after his kindergarten essay. She is now screaming about plagiarism. Is she saying now that what Obama wrote in kindergarten that 'I want to be president' was borrowed from another kid who also wrote 'I want to be president'.

The Clintons should leave Wisconsin and do their campaigning in Waco, Texas. Becuase that is what they hve become, wacco.

He beat Blair Hull, the front runner, in the Democratic nomination because of accusations that Blair Hull beat his wife, and they came out of divorce proceedings, and he dropped.

Then Ryan, his Republican challenger, dropped out because of some dirt on his divorce files.

Obama's got the cash, he's got the media, he's got the establishment, so he's trying to bury Hillary under old political methods. Hardly inspirational, and it's the oldest way to try to get to Washington.

But his campaign hasn't shown much beyond the good old money chain lately.

Hillary won't go down without a fight. The great speaker doesn't write his own speeches, well there's another myth debunked.

Plagiarism--a non-argument. Is this the best Billary can pull out against Obama? Such an argument sidesteps content. Nobody who supports Obama will change his/her mind based upon such a vacuous charge. Billary accuses Obama of lacking substance, but Billary's negative campaigning lacks character. Character means a lot this year. Honesty, something Billary is a stranger to, is paramount. Taking somebody's words to make a good point is not a lack of character.

As someone who was born in Wisconsin, I hope that my native state is smart enough to send Hillary packing and finally rid our party and our country of the whole dysfunctional, race-baiting, self-serving Clinton clan once and for all. (New York can live with the shame of electing the carpetbagger by itself.)

this is so silly. first off, the words " I have a dream, " MLK "we have nothing to fear but fear itself, " FDR " we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal " Declaration of Independence --aren't patrick's either, these are all widely used phrases in our national lexicon. for example when someone tells you to " never give up " (do they need to site winston churchill) ? -- obama was using an rhetorical argument used by patrick- and you can't plagiarize an argument. this is really desperate from the HRC camp- and shows that her hired guns really do lack ideas, and solutions that will connect with the american people.

apologies to those who read this comment in another column, but rest assured that i did not plagiarize from myself.

but balz, how about looking at a comment from bill clinton. he said during the NV caucus that - he saw a casino manager threatening to change the shift of an employee if she caucused for HRC.
this turned out to be a flat out lie from bill clinton. but a clinton lie is not a surprise anymore.

this is so silly. first off, the words " I have a dream, " MLK "we have nothing to fear but fear itself, " FDR " we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal " Declaration of Independence --aren't patrick's either, these are all widely used phrases in our national lexicon. for example when someone tells you to " never give up " (do they need to site winston churchill) ? -- obama was using an rhetorical argument used by patrick- and you can't plagiarize an argument. this is really desperate from the HRC camp- and shows that her hired guns really do lack ideas, and solutions that will connect with the american people.

apologies to those who read this comment in another column, but rest assured that i did not plagiarize from myself.

but balz, how about looking at a comment from bill clinton. he said during the NV caucus that - he saw a casino manager threatening to change the shift of an employee if she caucused for HRC.
this turned out to be a flat out lie from bill clinton. but a clinton lie is not a surprise anymore.

this is so silly. first off, the words " I have a dream, " MLK "we have nothing to fear but fear itself, " FDR " we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal " Declaration of Independence --aren't patrick's either, these are all widely used phrases in our national lexicon. for example when someone tells you to " never give up " (do they need to site winston churchill) ? -- obama was using an rhetorical argument used by patrick- and you can't plagiarize an argument. this is really desperate from the HRC camp- and shows that her hired guns really do lack ideas, and solutions that will connect with the american people.

apologies to those who read this comment in another column, but rest assured that i did not plagiarize from myself.

but balz, how about looking at a comment from bill clinton. he said during the NV caucus that - he saw a casino manager threatening to change the shift of an employee if she caucused for HRC.
this turned out to be a flat out lie from bill clinton. but a clinton lie is not a surprise anymore.

Hillary all the way! I am from Texas, a latina, graduate student going for my PhD. Unlike my parents, I do not represent a low-income household. However, as a latina I know where I come from and will support anyone that is working to better the lives of ALL people, not just the rich or educated. Many people say that younger generations of Hispanics do not connect with Hillary and what she has done in the past. However, by virtue of knowing that she has had an impact throughout the years in Texas, particulary within the Hispanic communities, merits my respect and as we latinos are known for, OUR LOYALTY!

Air America is bent right out of shape with Hillary's statement that she's going to get all the Michigan and Florida delegates seated and she's going to get enough superdelegates to win even if she doesn't have the most pledged delegates, whatever it takes to win.She doesn't care if it tears the convention or the party apart. A guy from New York called in and he said he voted for Bill twice and for Hillary for Senate twice, but if she doesn't have the most pledged delegates and she does that, he is through with her. I remember Nixon's policy was to win at all costs, also. I am referencing to the Ed Schultz show and the Randy Rhodes show, which according to my wife, a few months ago were pretty sweet on Hillary.

Experienced? Are you kidding me? This guy has no experience beyond the Daley political machine. He is cocky and immature, with an ego so big that he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. He hasn't even been around the house.

Worse than the plagiarism of words is the expropriation of the decades-old Democratic cause as his own invention.

Obama would have America believe that he and he alone is the first to articulate the hopes and dreams of middle-class America. These hopes and dreams have been articulated far better by many who have come before him.

But it is more than a question of articulation. It is a question of demanding change from the powerful interests clinging to the controls of this country and getting that change, because as Frederick Douglass said long ago "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will. Show me the exact amount of wrong and injustices that are visited upon a person and I will show you the exact amount of words endured by these people."

The Chavez/Patrick/Obama rallying cry of "Yes We Can" is a well turn phrases, but it pales when compared with Billary's rallying cry of "Once Again We Can" because
with Billary if you want to once again drive a stake through the dark heart of the Republicant Party's ugly canard that 5% unemployment is all the "full employment" the system can stand then "Once Again We Can" with Billary return to the days of 3.9% unemployment.

If a truly effective public school system is what you seek for America because you believe as Frederick Douglass said "[i]t is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men" then with Billary "Once Again We Can!"

If you believe that higher education for all those who choose to pursue it is the best ticket to the middle class and strengthen it then with Billary Clinton in the White House fighting to make education more affordable as they did before then say "Once Again We Can!"

If you believe that the people's government should stand as a bulwark against the forces of the powerful as they seek to gain further advantage which cost Americans their liberty, their limbs, and even their lives then with Billary Clinton "Once Again We Can," because Bill and Hillary have already stood up to the NRA, the Health Industry, the Big Pharma Industry, and even the Military Industrial Complex. They have the scars to prove it.

If you, the average American citizen, are ready to stand up and fight for the things you say you believe in then say "ONCE AGAIN WE CAN," and you'll have a proven fighter to help lead the way with Hillary Clinton in the White House.

Obama thought he will win Wisconsin easily because he was ahead by double digits. He said I wouldn't need to have a debate. So he refused to participate in the debate. but the latest polls show that both candidates
are in statistical ties.

This is the the nature of narcistic people. People are smarter than Obama thinks.

I spent all weekend in WI and lived there for nearly 7 years. There are A LOT of Democrats who loath Chicago politics, but the open primary and ability to register the day of voting certainly favors Obama.

But I love WI and they never fail to surprise, so maybe they will come to their senses and vote on merit instead of being overcome with the empty rhetoric and unfulfilled promises of Obama. Hillary still has a shot - not in Madison - but in Milwaukee and the suburbs and up in the Fox Valley. The independents will be with McCain in the general, and I can only hope they don't throw the election to Obama.

As far as the 'negative' attacks, there isn't a lot of mud flying around in WI between Clinton and Obama. If Obama and his supporters feel hurt by the differences pointed out or his using someone else's words and passing himself off as authentic, they better steal themselves for the general election. They aren't going to be running against Alan Keyes this time around.

Clinton's attempt to drag all these idealists down to earth is not healthy. I don't think the question for the president is "can you?". The question is "will you?". You want someone that answers to something other than insider politics and bunker mentalities, and for that - more than giving the voters inspiration YOU need to have the inspiration. You've got to ask not who is capable of getting it done, but who is willing to.

That's always been the case for Obama. If the heart and the energy are there, things will get done. A president doesn't need to personally write every bill. That's what a cabinet is for. The president needs to have the big picture, encourage congress to pass certain legislation and even force it sometimes. He needs to convince people and bring them to his side, which Obama has shown very capable of so far. The president needs to meet with world leaders and get them on our side, to create a system of priorities that we focus on, to make it easy for republicans in congress to debate and disagree but difficult for them to stonewall and prevent progress.

But this cynicism is unhealthy and adds nothing to the pool of thought. You can't build toward the future using the tools of the past. Yeah, I borrowed that line. I forget where it originated.

So, HRC says Obama "plagiarized" 'cause he forgot to give his friend Deval Patrick credit for accepting his suggestion to use his lines?

How does this compare with these whoppers:

In the CA debate, HRC claimed that the Iraq-war resolution was not an authroization to use force (except for the teensy-weensy problem of its TITLE, duh).

In the same debate, she said she voted against the Levin amendment because it would have ceded control of our forces to the UN. That was news to Carl Levin!

And, somewhat minor but no less disingenuous:

The day after the so-called phony "snub" of her by Obama at SOTU, she claimed to have "extended my hand, in unity and friendship," except the photos clearly show her extending her hand to, and looking directly at . . . Senator Kennedy!

The really significant part of this: Obama has said he was wrong to not credit Patrick. That is, he admitted he made a mistake. Hillary could take a lesson from him, since she's turned herself into a pretzel to avoid admitting her mistake in voting for the Iraq war resolution.

With their history, she and Bill really should think twice about questioning other people's integrity.

To mention another instance of such borrowing of phrases that have been borrowed for political purposes, I do know that Reagan's phrase"shining city on a hill" was borrowed from a poem by a famous poet, though I do not know which one. And Hillary, I'm told borrowed "Ready on day One" from Paris Hilton and also is always mentioning "HOT" peppers, I think that was stolen from Paris ,too. Some phrases that Bill Clinton has used, though, are definitely original, definitely Clintonisms, for instance"bimbo eruptions", "It depends on the meaning of what is is", and "I did not have sex with THAT woman." If Obama uses any of those last three phrases, he should definitely attribute them to Bill Clinton.

The weather in Wisconsin has been horrid the past month and they're used to it. Cheeseheads are not affected by weather like people are within the Beltway, so I don't see weather as a factor on Tuesday.

Actually, "Yes, We Can," is a bastardization of the mantra "I think I can," immoralized in 1930 by "The Little Engine That Could," a retelling (plagarized?) version "The Pony Engine." The author, Watty Piper, didn't exist. It was a pseudonym for the publishers Platt and Munk. HOW DARE Delores Heurta steal an American icon's message and not attribute it?????

I don't believe Robert Kennedy attributed this quote when he used it on the campaign stump: "Some men see things as they are and say why--I dream things that never were and say why not."

Again, the WaPo (and other online news media) make a big to-do about a meaningless subject. Let's talk about how we're going to get out of this so-called "war" and very real economic recession we're in. Let's stop talking about he-said, she-said stupidities already!

The "win" for Hillary, is simply to drag Obama down into the dirt where The Clintons like to play. She doesn't seem interested in talking policy, does she?

The sad thing is, her supporters are energized by it. "She's a fighter" they say, as she starts to drag this whole affair into the sewer.

Democrats might be satisfied with either of these candidates in a general election. But independents are not. When their policies are so similar, why would you even think of sending Hillary to bat when half of the country already dislikes her? It will be McCain before Clinton.

I find it simply idiotic that this whole plagiarism controversy is coming up at all. Nobody has these words copyrighted. When Obama started using the phrase"Change we can believe in" at the debates and started getting traction with it, every candidate, and there were a bunch of them, started using "change" in all their speeches, be it a Democratic or Republican candidate. Every single one of them. Then I saw Hillary giving a speech last week and she was saying "change" and "Yes we can". Saturday I saw John McCain giving a speech and it was almost word for word the speech President Bush had given the day before.Hillary wants it both ways, anything to win.

"Bill Clinton, the aspiring co-president without whom we would not even be discussing a President Hillary, was disbarred for lying. Disbarred for lying. That's dishonesty worth weighing in your vote."

ajacobs - not meaning to nitpick your post (which I agree with) but technically, Bill Clinton was both impeached and disbarred for "PERJURY" and "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE". I know that perjury is defined as lying under oath, but I just wanted to split legal hairs in this case because it is important to understand that Bill and Hillary lied all the time and got away with it (and they still are). Bill wasn't even penalized for pointing that gnarly finger at us in the TV camera and lying, "I never had sex with that woman . . ." because that was one of many lies he told when he was not "under oath".

It might also be worthwhile for voters to recall that Hillary was the only First Lady to ever be subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury; and that final reports from more than one Independent Counsel stated that she had made comments that were "factually untrue" (which sounds like the definition of a lie to me) but that there was "insufficient evidence to indict her". I'm sure we have all heard that phrase, "insufficient evidence to indict" before; usually associated with John Gotti, Al Capone, or someone like that who is merely represented by lawyers instead of someone like Clinton, who is herself a lawyer (and knows how to cover her hind side) as well as having the protection of the Presidency to hide behind.

Holy Cow, it's now plagiarism to quote the Declaration of Independence. What about the Constitution? The Clintons are so desperate that they are throwing anything they can find up against the wall hoping something will stick.

I just want to know from Hillary and Bill what the meaning of is is! She gives no attribution for lines lifted from Obama's speeches and used by her as if they were her own. Same old misleadung and divisive politics that the Clintons are famous for spewing.

Plagiarism? Is Senator Clinton serious? I guess that means the same charge can be made against her for copying Karl Rove's playbook. Talk about throwing everything at her opponent, including the kitchen sink. Senator Clinton, sadly, has forgotten the adage: "Win with grace; lose with dignity." She's determined, it seems, to do neither. She's calculating that other Democrats, like myself, will eventually forgive her if she wins the nomination. Some will. Many of us won't. I don't doubt that Senator Clinton can win the nomination with the negative politics she knows so well, but I wonder if she'll be able to govern effectively after embracing the dark side. What we see from Senator Clinton in this campaign is the best indication we have of what kind of president she'd make. Increasingly, I'm convinced that Senator Clinton isn't so much the fighter she'd have us believe, but, instead, just more of the same in a different package. When her actions in this campaign come back to bite her, I'll have no sympathy.

"Hope and change, hope and change worked in 2006, Obama is not the inspiration the media has made him out to be. He is doing nothing but repeating his friends 2006 campaign. Not his own thoughts, not his own ideas, just a repeat performance."

Actually, cjones210 - if you'd done your homework a little better, you would have known that Senator Obama and Governor Patrick or old college buddies from their days in college and frequently talk politics and exchange ideas. Specifically, you would have discovered that Deval Patrick actually borrowed a few ideas from Senator Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, as well as his book, "THE AUDACITY OF HOPE" when Patrick ran for Governor in 2006.

Well, the vast majority of people here recognize how ridiculous and silly they look when they post these things. What they don't realize, is that every time they post these things, they increase the odds that Obama will win.

I couldn't believe Obama supporters are senseless youngsters. I wish to know what do they know about politics and history, this is a huge mistake for our Country and for Obama if people vote Obama over Hillary.

Hold on a minute! Plagiarism is important! I am a public speaking professor at a university in New York, and if I found a student to have "borrowed" words from another speaker and not given credit, they would fail my class.
Public Speaking 101-
A great teacher once told me that you may never have an original idea or thought and if you're speaking to a group, you better know who said it first.
And from someone who uses the words of Dr. King and JFK daily to prove points and discuss the power of words, please Obama, please do not put yourself at the same level of these men. You have done nothing to prove yourself worthy. Not in my eyes anyway. Modesty is a virtue.

You have reduced yourself to the status of political hack with your comments on the plagiarism accusation. Don't you think that fairness requires saying the Senator Clinton steals words and ideas from Mr. Obama, Mr Edwards, etc., all the time.

Truth is Senator Clinton has no ideas. She says she does but it is one lie after another.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Senator Clinton and Bill should not get another chance to lie and fool us.

Are you proud of yourself that you are able to paste slanderous nonsense dirt?

I don't know who you support, McCain or Clinton, but it clear that you folks hold the idea of morals to be very low. Your idea is to do anything. Absolutely anything. So your candidate will win. There is a bigger world out there, and there is no way to justify this sort of thing. Why does WP allow you folks to continue to post here?

"A co-chairman of Hillary's Michigan campaign ... has a line that's sure to drive a whole bunch of red state governors up the wall:

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

Nice move. Isn't Texas a "red state"? Will the "second class citizens" there want to vote for Hillary's campaign?

Way to write off half the country. If only they could restrict the general election to Democratic voters in New York, California and Massachusetts, Hillary would be a shoo-in. Fly-over country be damned.

I disagree with Mr. Balz's attempt to say this incident is in any way analogous to Biden's mistake in 1988. Biden delivered an entire speech by Neil Kinnock, with just slight changes. He used facts about Kinnock's life that didn't apply to his own. He had had problems with plagiarism in law school, so the Kinnock revelation was more likely to prove damaging. And Biden used Kinnock's entire speech without permission.

In sharp contrast, Obama quoted a few lines, with permission, from a speech given by his friend, with whom he has a long history of sharing ideas and rhetoric. Indeed, it was Deval Patrick who suggested Obama use the lines in the first place!

To borrow (with attribution)from Shakespeare, let's hope voters see this for what it so obviously is: much ado about nothing.

"I pray to God that Clintons are not the kind of the people who would do ANYTHING to win. I would like to believe Hilary run for the office for our common good, not just because she wanted to keep the power within the family or even because she wanted to break the highest glass ceiling as a woman."

dhbalint1 - what planet have you been living on for the past couple decades or more?

1) Re house price 'discount':
"Obama Bought Home Without Rezko Discount, Seller Says. The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid ``was the best offer'' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land" "The sellers hadn't previously made their side of the story public out of concern for their privacy, according to Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's campaign. They approached Obama's Senate office 15 months ago and agreed to break their silence now through the campaign out of concern that the story was being distorted in the media, Burton said." (source Bloomberg news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aR8NLIoQEDc4&refer=us )

2)Re Exelon legislation:
"Although Obama had initially introduced the legislation, Inhofe had the decisive say on whether it would move forward. Two other Democratic senators on the committee, Barbara Boxer (CA), and Richard Durbin (IL), said that Obama had little choice except to go along with Inhofe, in order to keep his legislation alive. Both scoffed at Clinton's claims of a "backroom deal" between Obama and Exelon.

"Howard Wolfson wouldn't rule out that Hillary herself had used lines from others without attribution. He strained credibility by hinting that it would not be a big deal if she had, because she's not running on the strength of her rhetoric."

Actually, Barrack Obama is not running on the strength of his rhetoric either. Mr. Wolfson is guilty of swallowing his own campaign's schtick! Hillary has been trying to claim that Obama is all about rhetoric - "all talk and no action"; "he gives speeches and she offers solutions", etc.

So basically what it boils down to here according to Wolfson and the rest of the Clinton campaign is that it's OK for Hillary to do it, but she will lead the attack against Obama for doing what she herself has done? Is that pretty much it in a nutshell, Mr. Wolfson?

This all goes to show that Hillary believes there should be one set of rules for the Clintons and another set of rules for everyone else; which just goes to show how little the Clintons have changed or can ever be expected to change. Their elitest attitude that they are somehow above the laws that apply to everyone else is the tired old politics that America wants to get away from. Vote for CHANGE! OBAMA in '08!

I will be intrigued to see how Wisconsin plays out. As a Wisconsinite, I am really not sure what to expect. Having grown up here, my feeling all along has been that Milwaukee and Madison would carry Obama to victory. It would seem that the ads Clinton has been playing non-stop around here have had an impact. I don't know that I'd term it negative campaigning as much as trying to put the focus on Clinton's strength, which is the details. She is never going to be the inspiration or orator that Obama is, but so far it feels like she has been much better about laying out detailed, reasonable plans. If I were her, I'd be putting focus on that as well.

Since Hillary is now getting even uglier and nastier, her campaign must be in much bigger trouble than most people think. But of course everybody knew that the claws would come out when she gets desperate.

Dan Balz' well-expressed but ill-conceived article, alongside the outright horrific Messian-baiting headline article on this same page, are turning a once-respectable newspaper into a tabloid rag inundated with bias and trash. As I read both, my jaw dropped with disbelief. Is there no editor on duty at the Washington Post?

I ask this question of that sleeping or vacationing Editor: What gives your publication the right to attempt to indoctrinate an entire nation with slanted viewpoints purported to be journalistic fact, day after day? Please require all of your staff to elevate the level of discourse, or release them to find a way to make a living that doesn't have neutrality as a prerequisite.

"The mood at the Wisconsin Democratic Party's Founders Day dinner on Saturday night in Milwaukee was exuberant, as party activists cheered the two candidates and their own good fortune at being relevant."

BUT THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT! Hillary's campaign said on Saturday that they are not. The message from Camp Clinton just two days ago was that the number of states Senator Obama wins (including Wisconsin) is "IRRELEVANT" because they are going to count on the Super Delegates, who are more knowledgeable and understand better than rank and file democratic voters in any state to determine who would be the best candidate for the Democratic Party.

This country doesn't need to be INSPIRED to action... those unemployed and underemployed don't need HOPE. They need mean spirited DENIGRATION and economic STAGNATION. POLITICS of the PAST. GO CLINTON 08

The most important thing is for Obama to continue to define the debate. He must continue to speak for change and hope. Negative tactics of opponents only enforce who the debate is being controlled by. Voters in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas will all respond as those in Virgina, DC and Maryland have if the message of truth and hope are shown to be different from negative tactics of the establishment.

And in another sign that times are changing, Michael Dukakis fired his own staff member who leaked the Biden plagiarism video in 1988, saying this kind of thing had no place in a campaign....
Plus, turns out that Biden DID credit Neil Kinnock with the phrases that got him in trouble, in every speech he gave except the one that was taped...
My only question is this: Can the candidate correctly pronounce the word "nuclear"? Seeing as how the incumbent cannot, wouldn't you say the speechifying bar has been set pretty low for 2008?

Even the "solutions" business slogan is just that -- a slogan, not a statement of fact.

In two short years Obama has been involved with more substantive legislation than Clinton was in her previous 6 years. (e.g. nuclear non-proliferation; earmarks legislation; campaign finance reform). Even Clinton is jumping on the Sherod Brown act for American business -- just within the past 24 hours -- almost a year after Obama.

The problem with Clinton's sloganizing -- experience, a reformer with results -- is that it just doesn't hold up to any first level scrutiny, so instead we get these kind of inane smoke-screens about speeches or debates, which give people inside the Beltway something to talk about in the lull between primary contests. For lack of a better word it is just truly stupid -- and rather revealing about the Clinton campaigns conception about the intelligence of the Washington press corp and ordinary Americans. A lot of us just aren't buying it.

My semi-hero, Joe Biden, has often been excoriated for his unattributed use of British politician Neil Kinnock's sentiments about his heritage and political veritas. It is true that Biden did so and was caught on tape. It is equally true, however, that Biden has on multiple (untaped) occasions honored his debt to Kinnock. Biden's gaffe was nothing more or less than a routine and unfortunate curtailment of an unremarkable stumpyt speech.

1) A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (reference ABC News)

2) Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants in Illinois. Obama, a senator for Illinois introduces a bill to make disclosures mandatory. Seems like Exelon doesn't like it. Each draft of the new bill by Obama goes more and more towards Exelon till disclousures end up being "voluntary". What gives? How about $250,000+ donations by Exelon to Obama's campaingns!!! Obama is not change, he is WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. (reference New York Times)

People need to stop believing their fantasies about Obama and elect the only politician with character.

Hillary has been in the solutions business for a very long time. Unfortunately, the media is in the entertainment business so why should the media focus on a candidate that focuses on solutions...? This election will ultimately determine whether this nation "sinks or swims"... The Establishmnet has sold the American people down the river. We've been SOLD-OUT!

Credit Card rates at 30% interest, Gas at $3.00 a gallon, 40 million people with no Health Insurance, an Education system that doesn't work for our children, our parents and our companies, too many Americans with NO JOBS and less entrepreneurial opportunity.

Hillary has the determination and skill to fulfill her promise of a nation of shared prosperity.

If you ask me, I'm personally disgusted with the economic distribution in this country and more so with our lack of willingnes to address the two largest causes of our stalled growth... Education and Energy. We have the ability to turn this around Education in 5 years and Energy in 7... it's up to us.

There is no equivalency between Biden 's and Obama's cases. Biden stole entire passages of someone else's biography and attributed to himself words and actions that someone else said and did. Obama clearly swiped a rhetorical phrasing, and he should have prefaced it by saying "as my friend Deval Patrick says" but what would Biden have said? "As Neil Kinnock said in talking about his own life, the exact same thing happened to me"? Especially since Patrick himself had no problem with it, why should anyone else?

Words do matter - but look at the accomplishments of the original speakers of each of those stirring phrases when they spoke them. Each speaker, King, Jefferson, Roosevelt were highly accomplished men with the practical experience in their "fields" (for lack of better word) to back up those words. They were not campaign slogans (and neither was Chavez's "Si, Se Puede"). Before Senator Obama claims himself the heir to such righteous company, I think he needs to have a few more accomplishments under his belt.

This strikes me as a pretty desperate line of attack from the Clinton campaign. My recollection is that the Biden incident was in connection with a paper that he wrote while in law school -- not with a speech on the trial.

It's a doubly unpersuasive line of attack, because it's clear in Clinton's own speech-making of late she has been lifting themes and even some rough phrasing from her opponent.

Feb. 5th:

"You know, tonight, we are hearing the voices of people across America, people of all ages, of all colors, all faiths and all walks of life, people on the day shift, the night shift, the late shift, with the crying babies, moms and dads who want a better world for our children, young people who deserve a world of opportunity, all those who aren't in the headlines, but have always written America's story."

Barack Obama 9 days earlier in South Carolina:

"You can see it in the faces here tonight. There are young and old, rich and poor. They are black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American. (Cheers, applause.) They are Democrats from Des Moines and independents from Concord and, yes, some Republicans from rural Nevada. And we've got young people all across this country who've never had a reason to participate until now. (Cheers, applause.)"

Or in New Hampshire:

"We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

"America's story" versus "in the unlikely story that is America".

The difference here being that Clinton is essentially doing the kind of cut-and-paste job that most jr. high school teachers would jettison as unoriginal work. The theme is the same as Obama's speeches from the past couple months, but the cadences are off, and the poetry is completely absent.

The content of the speech is new only for Clinton.

In comparison the themes from New Hampshire a month earlier:

"Thank you. Thank you so much. I come tonight with a very, very full heart. And I want especially to thank New Hampshire. Over the last week, I listened to you and in the process, I found my own voice.

I felt like we all spoke from our hearts, and I am so gratified that you responded. Now, together, let's give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me.

For all the ups and downs of this campaign, you helped remind everyone that politics isn't a game. This campaign is about people. It's about making a difference in your lives. It's about making sure that everyone in this country has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential. That has been the work of my life."

So she goes from "me, me, me" in New Hampshire (e.g. "my voice" "my life") -- to a much broader conception of what this contest is really about.

It seems that Obama's momemtum is slowing down...As John McCain put it, Obama's words are nothing but platitudes...Anybody can talk the "change" game, but when you see families struggling in rust belt states like Wisconcin, talking is cheap, action is what's needed...

As you (and I, as a former Cheesehead) know, what others consider bad weather is NOTHING to us. Get up from your couches and vote...
Robert LaFollette is WATCHING you and WAITING for you to STEP UP now.
Think about the liberal tradition; remember the fires in UW Student Union's big fireplace; recall the scene overlooking the frozen Lake Medota; evoke all those fiery, earnest conversations about what it means to be free; DO THE RIGHT THING and vote
for Hillary. Your country needs you NOW!

Gov. Deval Patrick (02/17): "Senator Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language," Patrick said in the statement. "The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Senator Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did."

Obama said the United States should 'pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.' "Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." [AP, 9/8/04]

Ah, we were once young, us voters. To think Biden actually had to drop out of the race in 1988 - which is not to trivialize plagiarism but to suggest we keep in mind that politicians don't write their own speeches, so the offense can't be using another's words, but rather not paying for them. And if the politician who did pay originally doesn't object to their being borrowed, as is the case with Obama, same as it was with Biden, then there's no problem, moral or legal. Trouble is the opposition counts on voters not knowing this inconvenient fact.

Some of Hillary's accusations of Obama are so obviously desperate - this one of plagiarism is kind of fantastic, as well as her contention that his meetings with Excelon somehow imply that he is in the nuclear industry's pocket.

I could care less who Obama got the words from. Those people are no longer with us and would most likely be happy that they are used for such a good cause. We can't have all the problems of the Clinton's for the next four years. Besides Obama brings those words alive because they come from his heart and he makes them real and excites people!

This is trumped up nonsense. Obama was not writing an essay or a historical book where you need to quote sources, he was giving a speech! And the words were essentially given to him by his friend.

Serious desperation and mean-spiritedness on the part of Camp Clinton.

She should spend more time telling us about her vision and less time trying to tear Barack down---tear down a man who has brought more new voters to the Democratic party than possibly anyone in history.

It seems like noone can say anything negative about Obama without being attacked. Seriously the media are making him out to be the next Messiah. Meanwhile it's okay to make jabs at Hillary Clinton's cankles and bad hair days. This is getting old.

Seriously, if that was plagiarism by Obama (which I don't think it was), then half of everything every politician says is plagiarism. Clinton herself has appropriated so many themes, catchphrases, and ideas from her opponents in this race that she deserves the gold crown for such plagiarism.

Both Obama and Patrick are very good friend and they do think alike. they almost have the same ideology. it becomes a matter of who had the said the phrases first.
There was nothing new about the quotes Obama has been quoting JFK and MLK since the beginning of the movement. In fact go on Obama web site to see a supporter video where Obama has used the very same word in question. Give me a break -- look for something more substances
check Obama website for your selfhttp://www.barackobama.com/index.php

The plagerism charge can also be applied to Ronald Reagan. During the 1984 debate with Mondale, he responded to a question about age, by joking that age doesn't matter therefore he would not make an issue of his opponent's "youth and inexperience."

The line brought down the house -- but it wasn't his. He borrowed it from a congresswoman who used it a few years earlier, I believe -- but am not positive -- this was Millicent Fenwick. Great line, but the fact was it was plagerized. An additional fact is, no one really cared.

The notion that Obama "plagiarized" phrases from his friend the Governor of Massachusetts is absurd. These two men represent a new generation of eloquent, activist inspiring leaders who are moving the country forward. The Clinton campaign is grasping at their last straws by raising this as an issue.

It is a sign of their extreme desperation that they have not come up with a coherent message of positive hope for the country and are now attempting frantically to knock down Obama to save the sagging Clinton campaign. Tragic for her, of course, but we the people can rise above that shameful tactic and seek out a better alternative -- Barack Obama.

It will be interesting to see if anyone could dig up Obama's school records and term papers to see if he had the habbit of taking other's work and claim to be his. There are smart students who do this all the time, and in most cases got away fine....

Straw poll conducted by Wisconsin Public Radio this morning had Obama with around 40 votes, Clinton with around 25- and just one for McCain- so regardless of who wins the primary, the Democratic candidate is likely to take the state by much larger margins than in the previous two general elections. Wisconsin is truly a purple state- many rural areas and Milwaukee suburbs tend to vote republican- but this year, I think the war and Bush's deficit budgets will send those voters to the polls and they will vote for Obama.

"Forecast weather for when the polls open tomorrow: below zero with light snow. This doesn't obviously favor either candidate, though it is possible that Obama's support among younger voters may be softer."

What makes you say that? Young voters don't come out in the cold and snow? Since when? To the extent the weather has any effect (and I'm not sure it will) I'd think cold, ice and snow are the kinds of things that would be more likely to keep older voters from venturing out.

Hope and change, hope and change worked in 2006, Obama is not the inspiration the media has made him out to be. He is doing nothing but repeating his friends 2006 campaign. Not his own thoughts, not his own ideas, just a repeat performance.

In Wisconsin, Democratic primary voters are concentrated in SE Wisconsin (Milwaukee south to Racine and Kenosha), and the greater Madison area. There are also a sizable number of Democrats in towns like La Crosse and Eau Claire in the west, and in the northern rural counties.

Madison-area Democrats should go heavily for Obama. SE Wisconsin Democrats could, if turnout is high among African-American voters, most of whom live in this part of the state. Clinton's chance lies in running up big margins among outstate Democrats, and limiting Obama's margin in the southeast by getting support from older, industrial union-influenced Democrats there.

Forecast weather for when the polls open tomorrow: below zero with light snow. This doesn't obviously favor either candidate, though it is possible that Obama's support among younger voters may be softer.

Three points. (1) Bill, McAuliffe,Lanny Davis, where is Ann Lewis . . . the more these folks surround Hillary, the weaker she seems. (2) The attacks on Obama are the best strategy since Hillary offers no substantive difference (at least won't admit to any substantive difference). (3) At some point, the Clintons will have to choose whether to risk signficantly undermining the Democrats in November by pushing their fight even when Obama's victory is clear. We are not yet there but will be soon.

This will be a telling primary, IMO. Wisconsin seems to be tailor made for a Hillary victory. It has a huge proportion of people she claims to make up her voting base. If she can't win here handily then I seriously doubt she can in Ohio, Texas or Pennsylvania. She can not afford to have these contests close even if she wins the popular vote in the upcoming states. She needs blowouts to close the elected delegate gap with Obama. I think she knows he will maintain his lead in popular vote, elected delegates and states won which is why we are hearing them say super delegates should vote independently of the states they come from. It is also why she is trying to get Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. In a word, she is desperate.

Democrats are now seeing openly what the Republicans have claimed all along about the Clintons. They are self serving, manipulative, think they are above the law, cheat, are liars and will steal to get their way. Watch and you will see them tear the Democratic Party apart if they think it will get her the nomination. They have already thrown the blacks under the bus to gain Hispanic and white votes. The trouble is they didn't get enough white votes from the exercise. Watch just how mean and nasty they can get. This is far from over in the Clinton's eyes.

Contrary to Clinton's claim, you don't plagiarize your old friend and political ally, you borrow their language with their enthusiastic approval. Hillary's campaign continues to disappoint with unpleasant or petty tactics.

Does anyone have any illusion that Obama (or Clinton, or McCain, or any politicain) writes their own speaches? No, these words come from David Axelrod (his campaign strategist) who also provided these words to Deval Patrick. So, the contention is that he (Axelrod) stole these words... from himself? Or that Obama didn't mention someone else had provided some of the words?

As it is, retorting that the pledge of allegiance, the constitution, or the bible (etc.), are "just words" is the correct response to the criticism, regardless of who might have pointed that out first.
This is a total non-issue.

This "plagiarism" thing is ridiculous. Patrick and Obama are friends and share ideas. Beyond that, the notion that "words matter" and using quotes from Lincoln, MLK, JFK etc. to illustrate that fact is not exactly a new or unique concept. Heck, before I'd even heard Obama say it (or even knew Deval Patrick had ever said it) I was saying that exact same thing to friends and read many Obama supporters on blogs saying that using famous quotes to illustrate that "words matter" was a tack Obama should use in his speeches. We were thrilled when he did and thought he got the idea from us! :-) Just goes to show, it's an idea many people have had.

Well, it looks like Obama thought it's okay to engage in knowledge sharing with Patrick. What he did not know was that his words are scrutinized and disected by the Clinton campain. True, he should have been more careful. I think he learned it now. So, it's the end of the story for that matter. It was a very good speech, though. Even though Obama did not come up with the words, it really echoed his emotion at that time.

What concerns me is the emerging swiftboating tendency by the Clinton campaign. It looks as though someone in the campaign took a class from Carl Rove. Recall the rule #1 attack the known strength of the enemy. Obama is a known orator, so if Clinton campaign can discredit him for his speech, they can destroy this young and promising politician.

I pray to God that Clintons are not the kind of the people who would do ANYTHING to win. I would like to believe Hilary run for the office for our common good, not just because she wanted to keep the power within the family or even because she wanted to break the highest glass ceiling as a woman.

wcalan, you mean FDR, not TR. And Balz was referring to his use of Patrick's words, not those statesmen of the past. It's an absurd claim, though, and I bet that even were it true, Deval would have no issue with Obama using what is pretty common and standard rhetoric. (Oh, he's invoking past greats! That's never been done before!) PLEASE.

With the current administration trying to SCARE the crap out of us at every turn, and take away all of our civil liberties, it is good to know that another Dem candidate is ready to SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF US ON DAY ONE.
I think Keith Olbermann, noted for his blistering commentary on the Bush Administration, has this to say about the "ready on day one candidate"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k

Along with Joe Klein and Katherine Q. Seelye, Dan Balz is one of the most obvious pro-Hillary journalists around. Total hack. He's trying hard to give the plagarism charges legs, but the allegations are just silly. Why doesn't Balz mention that Hillary has often lifted some of Obama's best applause lines into her own speeches. Indeed, in today attack conference call with the press, Howard Wolfson wouldn't rule out that Hillary herself had used lines from others without attribution. He strained credibility by hinting that it would not be a big deal if she had, because she's not running on the strength of her rhetoric. The Clinton machine is grasping at straws, and Dan Balz wants to facilitate them in any way he can.

Dan, I'm surprised you've bought into this last act of desperation by the Clinton campaign. If you spent a few moments surveying the blogosphere, you'd have seen that many people have already debunked this as plagiarism (e.g., hillary steals lines from Obama, Obama and Deval share lines and ideas all the time -- as well as a speech writer). This is really small potatoes, I think we will see....

My problem with the plagerism charge from Clinton is that Clinton will have to be charged with plagerism as well. She has lifted almost verbatim Obama's words and phrases for the last two weeks and integrated them into her stump speech. If the press really wanted to be journalistic, why don't you drum up her speeches to comment on her plagerism. It's one thing to take similar words from an ally and friend than have your challenger taking your words and using them as her own. Shame on Clinton once again.

Wisconsin should offer some clues about the effectiveness of the negative tone adopted by the Clinton campaign in the last week. I had predicted this tactic would backfire like it appeared to have done in South Carolina. But I suppose it's less risky to go negative against a perceived front-runner, which Obama undoubtedly is.

If the attacks on Obama work in Wisconsin, I'd expect more of the same in advance of the OH and TX primaries. Whatever happens in Wisconsin, I wouldn't count Hillary out yet.